My skeptical mind thinks that for politicians it is not about what students spend, but the cheap labour they provide in Australia. A couple of years back a group of Indian students told me that at 80% of their job interviews they would immediately get told they would be making under minimum wage, the employer would blatantly state it. The international student's value is weakening the Australian labour laws (and cheaper hospitality and services). Maybe the wage theft scandals improved the situation since, but I doubt it.
Arguably, the real dividend from students from overseas studying in Australia is the building of friendships and useful contacts with those who study here and return home. Think Lee Kuan Yew who studied in Melbourne and was considered a friend who could keep us in touch with Asian realities. The pity of it is that there are so few Australians studying in China, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia, Taiwan, the Philippines and Malaysia. We don't have the realists who can call out those who continue to peddle the nonsense about the yellow peril. It could be salutary for us to see the Indonesian viewpoint that is on display in the sort of questions that are asked here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl7goPRw_eE
What Lee brought to Singapore was a Chinese perspective informed by an immersion in the best we had to offer, and his estimation of the best way forward for a polyglot population living on some mud flats in an equatorial sauna. https://fs.blog/lee-kuan-yew/
The Lee Kuan Yews of today are less likely to be coming to an Australian university because so much of the student body is attracted by the work and migration rights offered with an international visa. This means the feeling of a community of scholars and intellectuals looking for ideas to take back home is a thing of the past. That feeling of a community of intellectuals and scholars is a massive drawcard for many students. The LKYs of today are likely studying in North America or increasingly China. We need our universities run by PhDs again, not MBAs.
One could argue the export value of mining is zero. Minerals in the ground should be counted on the national balance sheet. Exporting minerals is therefore selling assets, not generating any income at all. Or perhaps the ABS ought to estimate the value-add generated by mineral extraction. Either way, mining export income is vastly overstated. As a rule, if the statistic is being quoted by a politician, it's probably wrong.
What about the fact that the vast major live in foreign owned student accomodation , built and owned by foreign investors who also get a 50% discount on taxation. The scam goes on.
The department numbers are out of date no doubt, but even if you bumped them up to $30k, that's still 1/3 less than your $45k p.a. estimate. Obviously some will spend more and others a bit less. But I still think even assuming $45k p.a. is too generous. $150 per night seems absurd for student spending, at least compared to what I was spending as a domestic student (albeit with some concessional govt support) and also the international students I know anecdotally.
That said, the one interesting question I wonder about is what the employment effects are from spending composition. Apparently education creates the most amount of jobs per $ spent, given it's highly labour intensive. So even if an international student works and takes hospo/retail jobs, if they disproportionately spend on education then they are probably still net job creators. Although whether this along with the more realistic export revenue they bring in is justified on such a scale (under what effectively a immigration ticket clipping scheme) is another matter.
From a university perspective, crowing about those numbers is maybe not such a good idea. Seems to be used as an excuse to cut funding - look how much money they are making!
I don’t believe the education providers or the ABS have ever claimed that the $40b is direct student fee revenue. As you derive, they clearly ascribe the total revenue to the Australian economy as being from related goods and services. What’s your point? If the students aren’t here, neither is the indirect/consequential revenue.
This is just a matter of deciding what KIND of benefit the student or student/worker generates. It's not clear what kind of decision would turn on the distinction. Would iron or coal mining be worth less if it were all consumed internally?
My skeptical mind thinks that for politicians it is not about what students spend, but the cheap labour they provide in Australia. A couple of years back a group of Indian students told me that at 80% of their job interviews they would immediately get told they would be making under minimum wage, the employer would blatantly state it. The international student's value is weakening the Australian labour laws (and cheaper hospitality and services). Maybe the wage theft scandals improved the situation since, but I doubt it.
Arguably, the real dividend from students from overseas studying in Australia is the building of friendships and useful contacts with those who study here and return home. Think Lee Kuan Yew who studied in Melbourne and was considered a friend who could keep us in touch with Asian realities. The pity of it is that there are so few Australians studying in China, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia, Taiwan, the Philippines and Malaysia. We don't have the realists who can call out those who continue to peddle the nonsense about the yellow peril. It could be salutary for us to see the Indonesian viewpoint that is on display in the sort of questions that are asked here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl7goPRw_eE
What Lee brought to Singapore was a Chinese perspective informed by an immersion in the best we had to offer, and his estimation of the best way forward for a polyglot population living on some mud flats in an equatorial sauna. https://fs.blog/lee-kuan-yew/
The Lee Kuan Yews of today are less likely to be coming to an Australian university because so much of the student body is attracted by the work and migration rights offered with an international visa. This means the feeling of a community of scholars and intellectuals looking for ideas to take back home is a thing of the past. That feeling of a community of intellectuals and scholars is a massive drawcard for many students. The LKYs of today are likely studying in North America or increasingly China. We need our universities run by PhDs again, not MBAs.
Some new information here: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2216248120?utm_source=CHINA+2020+Notification&utm_campaign=881eb8ca11-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2021_02_12_10_53_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_678a4a5d7b-881eb8ca11-459229964&goal=0_678a4a5d7b-881eb8ca11-459229964&mc_cid=881eb8ca11&mc_eid=9ca662402a
One could argue the export value of mining is zero. Minerals in the ground should be counted on the national balance sheet. Exporting minerals is therefore selling assets, not generating any income at all. Or perhaps the ABS ought to estimate the value-add generated by mineral extraction. Either way, mining export income is vastly overstated. As a rule, if the statistic is being quoted by a politician, it's probably wrong.
What about the fact that they can bring a partner with them who gets a work visa.
What about the fact that the vast major live in foreign owned student accomodation , built and owned by foreign investors who also get a 50% discount on taxation. The scam goes on.
I think these numbers become even more sketchy when you consider the estimated costs for international students to live in Australia:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-19/international-students-migrant-housing-crisis-living-costs/102355508
The department numbers are out of date no doubt, but even if you bumped them up to $30k, that's still 1/3 less than your $45k p.a. estimate. Obviously some will spend more and others a bit less. But I still think even assuming $45k p.a. is too generous. $150 per night seems absurd for student spending, at least compared to what I was spending as a domestic student (albeit with some concessional govt support) and also the international students I know anecdotally.
That said, the one interesting question I wonder about is what the employment effects are from spending composition. Apparently education creates the most amount of jobs per $ spent, given it's highly labour intensive. So even if an international student works and takes hospo/retail jobs, if they disproportionately spend on education then they are probably still net job creators. Although whether this along with the more realistic export revenue they bring in is justified on such a scale (under what effectively a immigration ticket clipping scheme) is another matter.
From a university perspective, crowing about those numbers is maybe not such a good idea. Seems to be used as an excuse to cut funding - look how much money they are making!
I don’t believe the education providers or the ABS have ever claimed that the $40b is direct student fee revenue. As you derive, they clearly ascribe the total revenue to the Australian economy as being from related goods and services. What’s your point? If the students aren’t here, neither is the indirect/consequential revenue.
This is just a matter of deciding what KIND of benefit the student or student/worker generates. It's not clear what kind of decision would turn on the distinction. Would iron or coal mining be worth less if it were all consumed internally?